lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrzej Bialecki ...@getopt.org>
Subject Re: Lucid Works
Date Fri, 08 Apr 2011 20:27:12 GMT
On 4/8/11 9:55 PM, Andy wrote:
>
> --- On Fri, 4/8/11, Andrzej Bialecki<ab@getopt.org>  wrote:
>
>
>> :) If you don't need the new functionality in 4.x, you don't
>> need the performance improvements,
>
> What performance improvements does 4.x have over 3.1?

Ah... well, many - take a look at the CHANGES.txt.

>
>> reindexing cycles are long (indexes tend to stay around)
>> then 3.1 is a safer bet. If you need a dozen or so new
>> exciting features (e.g. results grouping) or top
>> performance, or if you need LucidWorks with Click and other
>> goodies, then use 4.x and be prepared for an occasional full
>> reindex.
>
> So using 4.x would require occasional full reindex but using 3.1 would not? Could you
explain? I thought 4.x comes with NRT indexing. So why is full reindex necessary?

Well, so long as you don't want to upgrade then of course, index format 
is stable and you can manage it incrementally. But in case of an 
upgrade, because in 4.x index format is not stable - if you upgrade to a 
newer Lucene / LucidWorks of 4.x vintage then it may be the case that 
even though indexes before and after upgrade are of 4.x vintage they are 
still incompatible.

At some point there may be tools to transparently convert indexes from 
one 4.x to another 4.x format, but they are not there yet.

-- 
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki     <><
  ___. ___ ___ ___ _ _   __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/|  Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__||  \|  ||  |  Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com  Contact: info at sigram dot com


Mime
View raw message